The role of edge angle maintenance in explaining technological variation in the production of Late Middle Paleolithic bifacial and unifacial tools

Lithics of the late Middle Palaeolithic: Post MIS 5 technological variability and its implications

“…Alongside prepared core technologies such as Levallois, the Late Middle Palaeolithic also includes proliferations of bifacial, façon-nage, technology (Iovita, 2014;Ruebens, 2014), and cases of microlithic technology (Lewis et al, 2014) (Fig. 1).…”

“…Ruebens (2014) explores the learned dimensions of biface manufacture and shape to draw inferences about Middle Palaeolithic culture. Conversely, Iovita (2014) explores the pragmatic factors, which determine the manufacturing choices and shaping of bifaces. These two papers incorporate divergent methodological approaches to explore the large scale archaeological patterning of regions and in doing so differ from site-based studies.…”

“…However they are interpreted, the prevalence of bifacial technologies in certain contexts problematizes definitions of the Middle Palaeolithic, which is generally regarded as emphasising prepared core technologies. Iovita (2014) also addresses the character of bifacial tools in Late Middle Palaeolithic Europe. In contrast to typological and shape based interpretations of bifacial variability, Iovita (2014) emphasises the importance of the management of edge angles (as an example of 'pragmatic' influences on variability).…”

“…Bifacial reduction, then, can serve as a way of maintaining a desirable edge angle. The contrast between the approaches of Ruebens (2014) and Iovita (2014) suggests that elucidating the causes, character and implications of variability in Late Middle Palaeolithic bifacial technologies is likely to remain a lively field of research. As with all aspects of lithic technology, several factors affect the morpho-technological features of bifacial technologies.…”

Spatio-temporal variation in late Middle Palaeolithic Neanderthal behaviour: British bout coupé handaxes as a case study

“…Sometimes these occur in the absence of handaxes in the same raw material, further demonstrating the mobility of these elements (Soressi, 2002;Faivre, 2006;Wragg Sykes, 2010). Habitual resharpening and repair, alongside other secondary modifications (including percussion marks), suggest that handaxes formed a similarly dynamic part of the late Middle Palaeolithic toolkit (Soressi, 2002;Launay and Molines, 2005;Claud, 2008;Wragg Sykes, 2009Thi ebaut et al, 2010;Iovita, 2014). For example, some bifaces were recycled and reused as cores, e.g.…”